Day of Empire – How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance –
and Why They Fall. By Amy Chua. Doubleday, New York, 2007.

This
work had so much anticipatory potential as Amy Chua’s previous
work “World on Fire” had provided a strong, well-supported
thesis on how the colonial elites later brought about much of the incompetence,
racism, and malevolent tendencies of post-colonial governments. “Day
of Empire” held this promise, but for one significant word. If
it had continued on the theme of elitism (as in fact, elitism is one
of the main sub-themes), it would have been a much more acceptable work.
That one word makes all the difference, turning what could have been
a well-written exposition on the rise and fall of empires into a very
poorly argued one.

That one
word – toleration. Chua’s thesis is that “Every single
hyperpower in history…was extraordinarily pluralistic and tolerant
during its rise to preeminence,” arguing even more strongly that
“tolerance was indispensable to the achievement of hegemony.”
She puts many qualifiers on the word – “relative tolerance”,
“strategic tolerance”, “religious tolerance”,
“instrumental tolerance”, “calculating tolerance”,
“internal tolerance,” - but the most antithetical one is
her definition that “tolerance means letting every different kinds
of people live, work, and prosper in your society [emphasis added].”
How very kind of these empires – after razing, slaughtering, suppressing,
annexing, taxing, defeating, subduing, imposing, and enslaving other
societies – words repeated frequently throughout this book - they
then suddenly became magnanimous in victory and tolerated their presence
in their heartland – implying of course that they were still not
tolerated in the hinterland, as the many colonial and frontier wars
are sufficient evidence to show that they were not.

As for enslavement,
Chua qualifies that with a ‘notwithstanding’ clause. She
admits, “For much of its history the United States was no more
an exemplar of human rights than were the Romans or the Mongols. Americans
kept slaves; they brutally displaced and occasionally massacred indigenous
peoples. Nevertheless….” Ah yes, nevertheless, if we can
argue notwithstanding slavery and indigenous massacres, then, yes America
was tolerant. Obviously then, indigenous peoples and blacks do not count
when addressing tolerance. How plainly disingenuous. Her more modern
variant when looking at the twentieth century states that “notwithstanding
Vietnam or its chronic Latin American misadventures ” America
had great goodwill “built up in the world.” Okay, now we
add, Latin Americans, and Southeast Asians to the clause. Occasional
massacres? Misadventures?

It takes
a huge twist in rational to go from all this qualifications, from these
notwithstanding clauses, to accept the thesis that tolerance is one
of the main reasons for imperial success. By looking at what become
sub-themes, a more realistic picture of what makes an empire a hyperpower
appears.

One of the
ongoing sub-themes, and this reflects her first book and really should
be the main theme continued on from her previous work, is that of elitism.
Throughout her arguments, Chua constantly uses the word “elite”
in reference to how the empire controlled the peoples that were conquered.
Elites were “marshalled…to help rule their vast empire”,
the “elites” had citizenship extended to them, the “elites
of defeated powers were enticed to embrace Roman culture as a means
to power and privilege,” the elitism “began with the aristocracy”
so that they would “identify themselves with Roman rule and to
see their interests as aligned with the preservation of the empire,”
while guaranteeing “a certain level of protection, both from imperial
officials above and from the masses below.” Those darned unruly
masses, always convenient for conscripted labour and cheap cannon fodder,
but very inconvenient when it comes to equal rights and distribution
of wealth, but then, notwithstanding them, yes, lots of tolerance towards
the opportunistic quisling elites.

Another sub-theme,
one that is primary in many other works on empire, is that of militancy.
Again, throughout the work, Chua argues almost counter-intuitively that
the military made the initial conquests in most cases and then were
required as ongoing backup to the economic and political control of
the hinterland. This backup was often used directly, often it existed
as an ongoing threat, and always it was related to the control of the
elites. The Tang of China “combined military aggression with vigorous
foreign diplomacy” or alternately they subdued “rival kingdoms
through shrewd diplomacy backed by the threat of force rather than bloody
conquest.” The military theme predominates in the section on “The
Great Mongol Empire,” one of the more violent descriptions of
tolerance in action I have ever read.

The sub-themes
change marginally as the book progresses. Elitism and militancy carry
throughout. Tolerance becomes even more narrowly defined as “religious
tolerance” as the western empirical powers take turns slaughtering
each other. Chua argues that the Jewish religion becomes the main religious
benefactor as the governance of the world becomes more and more mindful
of finance capitalism to accompany the ongoing militancy proven so successful
by earlier empires. The rise of corporate capitalism - with the Dutch
East India Company and the British East India Company, and the many
corporate charters that enabled the settlement of the Americas - is
introduced, but the predations of capitalism and the ingathering of
wealth to the empirical heartland is not well developed, although she
does state that “colonization was largely financed by private
entrepreneurs.” Finally, after centuries of this rather bloodthirsty
“tolerance” the American hyperpower arises.

Tolerance
had little if anything to do with it. Natives were slaughtered genocidally,
treated as sub-human savages. Sitting Bull was tolerated for a while
on the rodeo circuit for his entertainment value, then murdered when
he refused to give way to the American government at Wounded Knee. Blacks
were not even human, relegated to mere property, although property owning
is one of the ‘virtues’ of the American empire. The Mexican
lands were fought for militarily and not bought by tolerance, with violence
reigning over the land. The Spanish War opened on the pretext of the
sinking of the Maine, while the indigenous rebellion in Cuba was squashed
even though it was successful. The same happened in the Philippines,
where an indigenous rebellion against the Spanish turned into a war
with the Americans when they refused to acknowledge the rebels’
success.

It goes on,
through Central America and the many incursions there on behalf of the
elites of the banana republics, the splitting of Panama from Colombia,
on to the more recent subversive activities in Chile, Argentina, Colombia
again, Panama again, Brazil, tiny Grenada, Guatemala, San Salvador,
and more, all backed by the military or the more modern tolerant approach
of using the CIA. In Asia, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia suffered great
direct military intervention all because the U.S. could not tolerate
the democratic vote that would have brought a socialist government to
Vietnam.

Chua’s
tolerance has nothing to say about the American fear of socialism, or
perhaps more correctly, the elitist fear of socialism. There was no
tolerance for the democratic principle of sharing the wealth of a nation
amongst all its people, at home or abroad. In the early Twentieth Century
the military was used in the heartland – along with private security
guards – to quell labour strikes that threatened to disrupt the
wealth and power of the elites. As the Twentieth Century entered it
second half, militant epical activities were more and more accompanied
by economic imperialism, with the WTO, IMF, OECD, the World Bank, all
acting in the corporate interest of drawing wealth, sucking wealth,
out of the hinterland (now the world, more and more ‘globalized’)
and to the heartland for the benefit of an ever decreasing smaller but
richer elite. Chua says quite directly that “economic dominance
continued to require military dominance” a reflection of Thomas
Friedman’s “hidden fist” of the military. Tolerance?
Free markets are anything but free.

Another element
missing in Chua’s thesis is that of propaganda. It is mentioned
early in the work, but is never discussed as a means of attracting wealth,
resources, and skilled labour to the heartland. Nor is it discussed
as a means of propagating the empire ever further into the hinterland,
at least for the folks back home who are susceptible to the calls of
freedom and democracy and free trade and rule of law and the many other
lies that are used to perpetuate military and economic dominance of
other countries. Tolerance is now part of propaganda.

All hyperpower
empires have failed. Chua posits a rather obvious extension to her thesis
that they become intolerant, that there is no “glue” to
hold them together. Certainly they did become more intolerant, but nothing
is really new there – desperate rulers seek desperate measures
as rebellion and opposition spreads, as the control of the elites weakens,
as the arrogance and hubris of the “civilizing” nation becomes
more and more at odds with the reality in the hinterland. The “glue”
that holds empires together is a combination of economic and military
elitism. Any group that is favoured over another group will eventually
become the target of opposition of some kind, and the more repressive
the elitist factor, the more violent the opposition.

Elitism and
militancy tend not to go away voluntarily. Mikhail Gorbachev’s
glasnost and perestroika worked for a while but lingering empirical
resentments still trouble the Russian frontier. Chua’s arguments
show that none of the previous empires died out peacefully but rather
violently. The world can only hope that as the American hyperpower faces
more and more problems globally that it does not react as other empires
have in the past by becoming more and more violent.

Tolerance
is not a creator of empire. Chua’s own arguments at times seem
to be against herself, thus all the qualifiers and ‘notwithstanding’
clauses necessary to keep the thesis alive. Tolerance is easy propaganda
for the powerful, an easy pretend factor, an opportunistic word to placate
the home crowd. A simple change of thesis to that of elitism or cronyism
would make “Day of Empire” a consistent reasonable presentation.

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist
of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. His
interest in this topic stems originally from an environmental perspective,
which encompasses the militarization and economic subjugation of the
global community and its commodification by corporate governance and
by the American government. Miles’ work is also presented globally
through other alternative websites and news publications.

Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.